Guess Who Has To Pay ?

Originally posted by BrianH+Feb 12 2007, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BrianH @ Feb 12 2007, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Desert Orchid@Feb 12 2007, 05:20 PM
Our NI contributions were originally intended to cover all aspects of medical care.
Click to expand...
I don't know what gave you that idea but it's totally wrong. The revenue from NI contributions was expected to roughly equate to spending on contributory benefits.
Initially, the most important of these were the State Retirement Pension and Unemployment Benefit. [/b][/quote]
I see where we're misunderstanding each other.

When I made my original assertion, I meant that Bevan's idea was that we got our health care, including prescriptions, in return for those contributions without paying anything at the point of delivery of health care.

Obviously emplyers and the government also contributed.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Feb 12 2007, 06:32 PM
Well, while we're on the subject of English taxes subsidising the enlightened policies of the Welsh and Scottish legislatures it's time for a reminder that council tax has been "adjusted" so that those in London and the home counties pay a greater contribution han total fairness would dictate in order to "assist with local spending in more deprived areas of the country".

And how delighted to help out we all are.
Click to expand...
I live in one of the counties that gets the least amount of grant from the Government despite high house prices, high cost of living, high council tax, low wages.

Now that's sucky.
 
I had to pay for years for my asthma inhalers (without which I don't suppose I would survive a good attack), but once I hit 60, I got them free, as do all pensioners. There are loads of reasons why people get free prescriptions in England, but for those who may struggle to pay for them, there are exemptions on application through a doctor.
 
Did I say that? :brows: Good grief, I meant to put 30!

Yes, dearest, tempus has fugitted madly and I'm now in the glowing autumn of my years, the memories as multitudes of leaves at my feet, etc., etc. Just waiting for the great leaf-blower of dementia to come and suck 'em all up, now... :D
 
Jules has made a good point - in essence the same as the guy on TRF who quite rightly pointed out that he can't believe people moaning about paying an extra 10p for the Racing Post when they're going to have £50 on the favourite in the first race at Plumpton!

As for the thyroid comments - I feel that the condition is being played down a little bit. My mother has had a totally inactive thyroid for 26 years and as such is entitled to free prescriptions. However she has to take thyroxin & another drug every day without fail or she cannot survive. She has also had a myriad of health problems over the years which have all been attributed to the way in which her body reacts to different levels of the thyroxin in her blood - even all this time later her health has to be constantly monitored & she undergoes regular tests and dosage changes of the drug.

I do sympathise though that a lot of conditions aren't covered under free prescriptions, it seems daft to me that some types of diabetes aren't covered even if the sufferer is on daily medication. More so though I feel that chronic arthritis sufferers should qualify - my mother is quite often bedridden as she is in so much pain (at the age of 53) and has been told that she has such chronic OA in her spine, hipe, hands, knees & feet that she will have to take painkillers on a daily basis (as well as celebrex) as she will only get worse.
 
I'm no expert but it sounds like there's quite a difference between a mildly under/over-active thyroid and a serious thyroid problem.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever with people who suffer from even the mildest type of thyroid problem getting medicine for it without charge but isn't it unfair on others to allow them every medicine free of charge?

If I didn't take my stuff I'd be an invalid and probably unable to work. I'd be in constant, barely bearable pain 24/7. But none of my conditions qualifies for free medication.

Hell, I wouldn't even be able to give out all those winners...
 
Speaking as a Doctor, I feel that all prescriptions should be free. Since 99.999% of them are for amoxycillin the government probably buys them bulk at 1p per bottle.

PS It's just as well we all have two thyroids.
 
I never pay for them. Never have, never will.

Its all about finding a chemist that doesn't do the checks, then you just tick which every box you like. :D
 
So you are one of the people who will happily chuck money away on horses but will then defraud the state for the sake of 6 quid?
 
I'm not saying that people with serious thyroid problems should not get their medication free. However there is no consistency. My ex suffered with a very rare condition (I think there are only a handful of people in the country with this condition and some do not survive past childhood) which caused tumours in his liver and ulceration in his stomach. If he did not take daily medication to control this, he would not survive. However he had to pay for every penny of every prescription.

Equally there have been times in the past where I have been on constant and quite nasty medication in order to function - without it, I would have been in constant pain and bedridden. OK, it would not have been life-threatening by itself (like my ex's condition) but I would have effectively had no life, and could not have lived like that for any length of time.

Whereas my boss (and his boss too, since we were in the same office at one time - bad idea - that's another story) would regularly and gleefully tell everyone that every prescription she had was free, even antibiotics and general basic remedies, although her general health was an awful lot better than my ex's.

Thankfully I am a lot better these days - thanks to alternative medicine, proper pain control and acupuncture - so I tend not to have to rely on quite so many prescriptions. I'm also aware that the drugs I have been on in the past have been quite costly to the State, so I'm not being ungrateful!
 
It's bizarre!

No matter what the original promises were about the NHS, the simple facts are that we have an ageing population, a relatively low birth rate and a massively unwieldy NHS now that cannot continue to operate in the same way that it used to! Changes have to be made and the majority of us lucky enough to have decent jobs will have to face up to the fact that we will have to pay more for our health.

Instead of moaning about paying for your prescriptions, thank your lucky stars the medicines exist at all that enable you to continue to function - how do you think that has come about?

Dear God, what a bunch of whingers !

(Not directed at you, Purr - your post appeared before I'd finished my rant!!)
 
Funding for NHS Wales is part of the block grant from Westminster for all services which are managed by the Welsh Assembly. The money to pay for free prescriptions simply means that some other service in Wales receives less. Thus, your average Wolverhampton taxpayer is not subsidising this service any more than he was before.
 
What's so wrong with whingeing about having to pay twice for something?

I'm sure if you paid to get into a car park only to discover you had to pay to get out again you'd whinge too. If the attendant said, "Sorry, love, our costs have risen in the time you were in the mall - we've got more cars than usual so we need more staff than usual and it has to be paid for..." I'm sure you'd have plenty to say to him and/or the carpark operators.
 
What a weak analogy, DO - a car park has a set capital cost and overheads and these would rise at a pretty fixed rate. On entering the car park, you enter into a contract with the owners of said c-p and the terms are fixed before you enter between both parties. I don't know how many car parks you've used that increase charges after you entered of course but it's never happened to me! If their costs have increased, they are able to increase them witihn a matter of days, so the problem wouldn't arise.

When you were born, however, there was no fixed contract between you and the State as to what you could expect to receive during your lifetime. There were no pre-agreed conditions that if the population became unbalanced, then new terms could not be implemented - it was a relatively fluid set up that has had to adapt to times and trends. Unfortunately, because the NHS is such a huge structure, it hasn't been able to adapt quickly enough - also due to being grossly mismanaged by successive governments. It's pretty much impossible for us to judge whether or not in 1946 it could have been foreseen that medical advances and social mores would have changed as much as they have and that contingencies be put in place to account for these changes.

It is utterly simplistic to contend you are paying twice. You're not paying twice, you are just supplementing payments you are making through your NI and taxes to meet the increased costs of running the NHS.
 
OK, try this one...

You are having a house built. You agree a price with the buidler but half way through the build he comes to you and says, "Sorry, love, but my costs have risen since we agreed the price. I'll have to pass the increase on to you. Instead of £150,000 the house will now cost you £200,000."
 
Oh, come on, DO! If you had a house built in 1946, to counter your simile, you wouldn't expect to now sell it for the price it cost then, would you? "Yes, £2,000 will do very nicely, thank you." I don't think so! You can hardly expect the government's services - including manufacture of drugs, packaging, and transport costs - to remain at 60 year-old standards.
 
Originally posted by The Pro@Feb 13 2007, 09:50 AM
I never pay for them. Never have, never will.

Its all about finding a chemist that doesn't do the checks, then you just tick which every box you like. :D
Click to expand...
There is a fella on our estate who never pays for dental care, he is in full time work, he claims he is on benefits, hence his dental care is free, I pay nearly £200-00, per tooth for a crown, this fraudster comes into our social club and mocks the rest of us who pay.

Now he has been caught and owes the government thousands, he had the cheek to ask me to loan him the money, no chance, :D he will ask the rest of my family and receive the same answer, he has told us that he may go to prison, I give him short, sharp reply, if you can't do the time mate don't do the crime now f**k off.

It may take time but you will always be caught, Prescription charges, I will just pay them without blinking an eye lid, if I can put hundreds on horses £6 and some odd pence pales into the abbys :D
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Feb 12 2007, 08:37 PM
As for the thyroid comments - I feel that the condition is being played down a little bit.  My mother has had a totally inactive thyroid for 26 years and as such is entitled to free prescriptions.  However she has to take thyroxin & another drug every day without fail or she cannot survive.  She has also had a myriad of health problems over the years which have all been attributed to the way in which her body reacts to different levels of the thyroxin in her blood - even all this time later her health has to be constantly monitored & she undergoes regular tests and dosage changes of the drug.
Click to expand...
Likewise my mother, and my late grandmother and great grandmother. Dodgy thyroids are hereditary amongst the women on that side of the family. Next Thursday I'll be having a blood test which will no doubt confirm I've finally developed it too and after which I'll also be claiming my prescriptions free for the rest of my life.

If somebody needs medication for life I do believe it should be free of charge or for a small fee per year. The one off here and there prescriptions should be paid for by the patient.
 
Originally posted by Griffin+Feb 13 2007, 07:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Griffin @ Feb 13 2007, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Shadow Leader@Feb 12 2007, 08:37 PM
As for the thyroid comments - I feel that the condition is being played down a little bit.  My mother has had a totally inactive thyroid for 26 years and as such is entitled to free prescriptions.  However she has to take thyroxin & another drug every day without fail or she cannot survive.  She has also had a myriad of health problems over the years which have all been attributed to the way in which her body reacts to different levels of the thyroxin in her blood - even all this time later her health has to be constantly monitored & she undergoes regular tests and dosage changes of the drug.
Click to expand...
Likewise my mother, and my late grandmother and great grandmother. Dodgy thyroids are hereditary amongst the women on that side of the family. Next Thursday I'll be having a blood test which will no doubt confirm I've finally developed it too and after which I'll also be claiming my prescriptions free for the rest of my life.

If somebody needs medication for life I do believe it should be free of charge or for a small fee per year. The one off here and there prescriptions should be paid for by the patient. [/b][/quote]
You have my sympaphy Griffin and I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments :)
 
Originally posted by krizon@Feb 13 2007, 04:15 PM
Oh, come on, DO! If you had a house built in 1946, to counter your simile, you wouldn't expect to now sell it for the price it cost then, would you? "Yes, £2,000 will do very nicely, thank you." I don't think so! You can hardly expect the government's services - including manufacture of drugs, packaging, and transport costs - to remain at 60 year-old standards.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with my analogy?

At any rate, NI contributions account for a percentage of earnings, not a fixed amount. Under the Welfare State, health care was intended to be free at the point of delivery. I contend that it could be free if successive governments wanted it to be free. I don't have any objection to paying a nominal charge under the auspices of 'administration' as a deterrent against tight@rses getting aspirin (more likely to be paracetamol nowadays) for free instead of paying a few pence.

However, if in 1948 it was possible for it to be free, it should still be possible because it's all about percentages. What has happened is that the government has altered the amounts each contributor makes and making us pay twice, firstly via our NI contributions and secondly by charging us for our prescriptions and, in some cases, physical aids. I'd gladly pay more at source if it meant reducing prescription (and other) charges back to nominal levels.

And let's not forget it isn't all that long ago that you used to be able to get more than one medicine on the one prescription. If you need three items at the one time it's pennies off £20. I think it's scandalous.
 
Dont you think it barmy that we can moan regarding our pescriptionn charges when there are people/kids in Africa without the very basic medication.
It is scandalous :rant:
 
Funding for NHS Wales is part of the block grant from Westminster for all services which are managed by the Welsh Assembly. The money to pay for free prescriptions simply means that some other service in Wales receives less. Thus, your average Wolverhampton taxpayer is not subsidising this service any more than he was before.
Click to expand...

Is the grant the same per head as in england? No facts tp hand myself...but can guess
 
Back
Top